Journal of Environmental Psychology - Tallinn Universityarro/Happy Space EKA 2014/empirical research in env p.pdf · the distinctive features of environmental psychology by analysing

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 375–386

Contents lists avai

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jep

Empirical research in environmental psychology: Past, present, and future

Maria Vittoria Giuliani a,*, Massimiliano Scopelliti a,b

a Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology, National Research Council (CNR), Via Nomentana 56, 00161 Rome, Italyb Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology 2, University ‘‘La Sapienza’’, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 11 February 2009

Keywords:Journal of Environmental PsychologyEnvironment & BehaviorTrendsChanging research interestsFuture directions

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 06 4416 1528; faE-mail address: [email protected] (M.V. G

0272-4944/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.008

a b s t r a c t

Have research interests in environmental psychology changed over the years? If so, in which direction?What can we learn from the past to direct future research? To answer these questions, empirical studiespublished in Environment & Behavior (E&B) and in Journal of Environmental Psychology (JEP), from theirfoundation to 2005, were reviewed. The articles were classified in relation to the following criteria: modeof human–environment transaction, research topic, type of setting and function of places, socio-demo-graphic characteristics and environmental role of people, mode of presentation of the setting, samplingprocedure, and source of data. Results showed both variations through the years and differences betweenthe journals. The main research topics can be identified as the study of the residential environment,environmental cognition, observation of actual behaviour in the environment, and concern for theecological value of the global environment. Trends in research interests showed a stable interest in theanalysis of the built environment, a more place-specific approach in the beginning, strongly anchored inobservational studies, and a central concern for sustainability and conservation of the environment inrecent years. With respect to journals, the central role attributed to psychology by JEP, and the strongerparticipation by designers and planners in E&B, are reflected in the emphases given to the differentmodes of human–environment transaction. Trends in research interests help address the strengths andweaknesses of the discipline, thus suggesting future directions of inquiry.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

When Kenneth Craik published in 1973 the first review of thedevelopment of environmental psychology in the Annual Review ofPsychology, he claimed that a distinctive feature of ‘‘the scientificstudy of the interplay between human behaviour and its environ-mental settings’’ (Craik, 1973, p. 403) is its inherently multidisci-plinary character. This is one of the reasons for different termsemployed to designate the study of man–environment relationships(in 1973, people was still ‘‘man’’). Within psychology, the choice ofthe label ‘‘environmental psychology’’, instead of ‘‘ecologicalpsychology’’ (Barker, 1968) or ‘‘architectural psychology’’ (Canter,1970) was motivated by its being ‘‘an inclusive, theoretically neutralterm’’ (Craik, 1973, p. 403). Craik’s presentation ended with a ques-tion, i.e. ‘‘whether environmental psychology will function narrowlyand usefully as a chapter title for disparate but related topics, or willinstead come to signify a coherent theoretical framework forunderstanding man–environment relations from a psychologicalperspective’’ (Craik, 1973, p. 412).

x: þ39 06 4416 1513.iuliani).

All rights reserved.

Subsequent reviews of the field (Stokols, 1978; Russell & Ward,1982; Holahan, 1986; Saegert & Winkel, 1990; Sundstrom, Bell,Busby, & Asmus, 1996), all begin by emphasising the developmentsoccurred in the field, and the increasing number of publications,both in journals and in edited series. Actually, in 1980–1983, inaddition to the pioneering Environment & Behavior, also the jour-nals Architecture & Comportement/Architecture & Behaviour, Journalof Environmental Psychology, and Journal of Architectural and Plan-ning Research appeared.

The acknowledgment of the growth of the field is oftenaccompanied by concerns about its coherence and conceptualdevelopment and by a persistent worry about a distinctive identityof the psychological perspective with respect to the wider area ofenvironment and behaviour studies and its capacity to survive.

Ralph Taylor (1980) already wondered whether the environ-mental psychology season was over (cit. in Canter & Craik, 1981); inthe first, big Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Proshansky(1987)done of the founders of environmental psychologydwhilerecognising that during the last five years the field had not shownany real growth, declared that it was ‘‘holding its own’’. He thenasked himself ‘‘Will growth occur over time that is significant orwill the field eventually fade away?’’ (Proshansky, 1987, p. 1475),and stated that: ‘‘. the future of environmental psychology may

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02724944

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Table 1Definitions and research concerns of people–environment studies over the years.

Author Definition Research concerns

Barker (1968) Ecologicalpsychology

The study of human behaviour situated ina specific context/environment

Canter (1970) Architecturalpsychology

The role of psychological processes inindividual-built environment relationship

Craik (1973) Environmentalpsychology

The study of man–environment relationsfrom a psychological perspective

Pol (1993) Green psychology A change from the concern for architectureand urban milieu towards an interest in thepro-ecological issues and the green

Stokols (1995) Environmentalpsychology

Part of a multidisciplinary field ofenvironment and behaviour, with thecommon focus on people’s relationships withtheir sociophysical surroundings

Gifford (1995) Naturalpsychology

A branch of environmental psychology inwhich the scientific study of person–naturetransactions is pursued

Bonnes &Bonaiuto(2002)

Environmentalpsychology ofsustainabledevelopment

The study of behavioursdand psychologicalprocesses influencing themdin everydayenvironments that affect natural processes orresources at the local and global level

M.V. Giuliani, M. Scopelliti / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 375–386376

still be in jeopardy. Its ability to endure and continue to develop asa social institution and, therefore, in its scientific achievements iscast in considerable doubt.’’ (Proshansky, 1987, p. 1476). In Prosh-ansky’s view, a critical step for environmental psychology success is‘‘strengthen itself as a social institution’’ (Proshansky, 1987, p.1486),starting by demonstrating its significance for other fields ofpsychology.

In a similar vein, nearly ten years later a much-debated paper byDaniel Stokols (1995) brought to the foreground the subject of envi-ronmental psychology identity. However, it must benoted that, unlikeProshansky (1987), Stokols considers environmental psychology notas a branch or subfield of psychology, but ‘‘as part of a multidisci-plinary field of environment and behaviour’’ or ‘‘as a disparate set ofresearch areas and perspectives, spanning multiple disciplines, thatare linked by a common focus on people’s relationships with theirsociophysical surroundings’’ (Stokols, 1995, p. 822).

According to Stokols, the identity of the field as a distinct area ofstudy had become increasingly ‘‘diffuse’’ and ‘‘transparent’’ forthree fundamental reasons: its multidisciplinary complexity, itsinternational scope, and the incorporation of environmental issuesinto all or almost all sectors of psychology. At the same time,environmental psychology is bound to continue losing its identitybecause more and more its conceptual and methodological prin-ciples are included in other areas of psychology and otherdisciplines.

As a matter of fact, starting from the 1990s, some new trendsemerged in publications related to environment and behaviourstudies. With the thirteenth volume on Women and Environment, in1994 the Plenum Series on Human Behavior and Environment:Advances in Theory and Research (first published in 1976 by IrwinAltman and Joachim F. Wohlwill) stopped its publications. One yearlater, Architecture & Comportement/Architecture & Behaviour alsostopped its publications, and the same happened in 1997 (ten yearsafter the first publication) with the fourth and last volume of thePlenum Series Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, editedby Gary Moore and Robert Marans.

This did not mean that publications in environmentalpsychology languished: illustrating some changes in the editorialboard of the Journal of Environmental Psychology, David Canter(1998) wrote that during the 1980s ‘‘environmental psychology lostits momentum’’, but ‘‘the field started to grow again in the 1990s’’,with an increasing number of papers submitted to the journal, andpapers in environmental psychology published in journals oncommunity and health psychology, on tourism or ecology. Thejournal Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano created in 2000in Spain constitutes a reference point not only for Spanish scholars,but also for the lively and numerous communities of environmentalpsychologists in Latin America.

As regards textbooks and edited books, in addition to CambridgeUniversity Press and Avebury, with their series dedicated to envi-ronment and behaviour still under way, an increasing number ofvolumes came to light with many different publishers, from Sage toErlbaum, from MIT Press and Oxford University Press to Kluwer,from Springer to Blackwell. Lastly, starting from 2002, edited booksincluding selected papers from IAPS Conferences were publishedby Hogrefe and Huber.

However, starting from the 1990s, the label ‘‘environmentalpsychology’’, once considered too narrow with respect to themultidisciplinary environment and behaviour field, began toappear too general for many research areas looking for a distinctiveidentity.

A sign of the new trend could be considered the fact that in theAnnual Review of Psychology the last chapter with the title ‘‘envi-ronmental psychology’’ was published in 1996, while two subse-quent reviews dealt with more specific and limited topics, that is

‘‘The environmental psychology of capsule habitats’’ (Suedfeld &Steel, 2000), and ‘‘Environmental Psychology. Child developmentand the physical environment’’ (Evans, 2006).

The best example, however, is represented by the research fielddevoted to pro-environmental attitude and behaviour.

As early as 1993, Enric Pol gave his book on the development ofEnvironmental Psychology in Europe the sub-title ‘‘From architec-tural psychology to green psychology’’. In 1995, in the introductionto a special issue of JEP on ‘‘natural psychology’’, Robert Giffordwrote that ‘‘Natural psychology is that branch of environmentalpsychology in which the scientific study of person-nature trans-actions is pursued’’ (Gifford, 1995, p. 167).

In the Handbook of Environmental Psychology edited in 2002 byRobert Bechtel and Arza Churchman, Mirilia Bonnes and MarinoBonaiuto argued that present-day environmental psychology couldbe identified with the ‘‘environmental psychology of sustainabledevelopment’’. In 2001, the 2nd number of Population and Envi-ronmental Psychology Bulletin of APA was devoted to a debate on‘‘conservation psychology’’, with articles somewhat echoing envi-ronmental psychologists’ debate about the label of the field, andone year later Carol Saunders organised the first conference onconservation psychology. Apart from the narrow scopedi.e. itsfocus on the conservation of the natural worlddit is difficult to find‘‘scientific’’ motivations for the birth of this new field. In fact,according to Saunders (2003, pp. 139–140), most of the featurescharacterising the ‘‘new’’ field labelled ‘‘conservation psychology’’appear to be characteristics as well of environmental psychologyfrom the onset (e.g. the multidisciplinary tendency and the interestin application).

Finally, in a recent number of the Journal of Social Issues, RobertGifford (2007) claims that a sign of the maturation of environ-mental psychology is indeed its evolution toward an environmentalpsychology of sustainability.

A synthetic overview of the terminology employed over theyears to refer to people–environment studies is given in Table 1.

Whilst we agree with the claim that sustainability is a key issuefor current century research, we hesitate about identifying theobject of environmental psychology merely with ‘‘the ecologicalproblem’’: wouldn’t this mean wasting the richness of knowledgeaccumulated over the years in many areas of people–environmenttransactions?

In this frame, it seemed to us of particular interest to examinewhether and how the scientific concerns of the discipline have

Table 2Modes of human–environment transaction (from Stokols, 1978).

Form of transaction

Cognitive Behavioural

Phase of transaction Active Interpretive OperativeReactive Evaluative Responsive

M.V. Giuliani, M. Scopelliti / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 375–386 377

evolved over the past 40 years. In this respect, it is useful toinvestigate not only what were the specific research topicsaddressed by environmental psychology since its very beginning tocurrent publications, but alsodand more importantdto under-stand how these topics were addressed. The inner core of a scienceof people–environment relations is presumably to be found in therelationship between a research issue that has to do with humanbehaviour, an environment in which it is situated, the actorsinvolved, and the methods assumed to be appropriate to the issuesat stake.

Understanding the past and the present of people–environmentstudies can be considered, in our view, a key starting point foridentifying the strengths and the weaknesses of the discipline, thussuggesting potential developments for the future.

2. The study

In line with Robins, Gosling, and Craik (1999), who suggestedthe importance of evaluating disciplinary trends on empiricalinvestigation rather than on mere speculation, we tried to highlightthe distinctive features of environmental psychology by analysingthe articles published in the two most influential journals in thefield, namely Environment and Behavior (E&B) and the Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology (JEP). We are aware that a large part ofthe activity carried out in this field is not reflected in these jour-nalsdin particular applied research is definitely under-represented, work on cognitive mapping and wayfinding is also reportedin other more specialised and prestigious journals in cognition andneuroscience as well as in computer science, and the English-speaking world is undoubtedly over-represented. Nevertheless,limiting our analysis to these journals has unquestionable advan-tages in this context: first, they offer a good picture of ‘‘mainstreamenvironmental psychology’’, being the only journals that refer tothe entire field of environment and behaviour studies, and not toa specific theoretical approach or sub-area; second, they securea continuity over the years essential for our purpose; and finallythey are cited in all the websites as the main journal resources forenvironmental psychology.

2.1. Objectives

The first objective of the study was to clarify the major trends inenvironmental psychology research, from the very beginning to thepresent, by identifying the topics addressed and the dimensions ofperson–environment transactions, the environments investigated,the role of people, the methodological choices, and the relation-ships among all of these aspects. A second objective was to pinpointpossible differences between the two journals, in order to betterunderstand the specificity of environmental psychology in thestrict sense, as highlighted by JEP, with respect to the broader fieldof environment and behaviour research, which, according to thename and the editorial programme of the journal, we assumedwould be best reflected in E&B production.

2.2. Method

A data base was created including all the articles published inE&B and JEP since the first issue (in 1969 for E&B, and in 1981 forJEP) up to 2005.

The total number of articles sums up to 1787, respectively 1160in E&B and 627 in JEP.

2.2.1. Classification of journal articles and preliminary analysesThe first step was to separate articles reporting empirical

research from theoretical/methodological articles or review essays.

The former group of articles (Total number ¼ 1499, E&B ¼ 974,JEP ¼ 525) was then classified according to the following criteria:

2.2.1.1. The mode of human–environment transaction. According toStokols (1978), people try to optimise their relationship with theenvironment through a dynamic process, in which ‘‘they orient tothe environment in terms of existing information, goals andexpectations; they operate in the environment to achieve theirgoals [.]; they are directly affected by environmental forces [.];they evaluate the quality of the environment as a context forfuture activity and goal attainment’’ (Stokols, 1978, p. 259). So, thehuman–environment transaction ‘‘can be characterised in termsof two basic dimensions: (1) cognitive (or symbolic) vs. behav-ioural (of physical) form of transaction; and (2) active vs. reactivephase of transaction. Taken together, these dimensions yield fourmodes of human–environment transaction’’ (Stokols, 1978, p.259), namely Interpretive, Operative, Evaluative, and Responsive(see Table 2).

2.2.1.2. The research theme. The next criterion is the researchtheme and the specific problem dealt with. Research themes wereidentified as follows, with reference to the four modes oftransaction:

1. Interpretive mode:1.1. spatial cognition, cognitive maps, wayfinding, perception

of the environment;1.2. meaning and sense of place, place and identity processes,

affective processes;1.3. personality and the environment.

2. Evaluative mode:2.1. aesthetic evaluation;2.2. assessment of environmental quality, preferences and

satisfaction;2.3. environmental attitudes and disposition, environmental

concern and values, risk perception.3. Operative mode:

3.1. pro-environmental behaviour (recycling, littering, energyuse, etc.), interventions to preserve the environment;

3.2. control of the environment, and use of space and distancein the management of social interaction (territoriality,privacy, personal space);

3.3. organisation and use of the space, location choices,participation in planning:

4. Responsive mode:4.1. behavioural and health consequences of environmental

stressors, coping behaviour;4.2. environmental properties and impact of the built/natural

environment on performance, health, and behaviour.

At times, some simplifications were required, given that, asStokols (1978) observed, the borders between the differentmodes are not always clear and distinct, and numerous studiesencompass more than a single transactional mode or researchtheme. For example, most research on aesthetics looks likea borderland between cognition and evaluation; the studies ondensity and crowding often examine not only people’s reactions,

1 These two last categories were conceptually similar and included a loweramount of cases. As a consequence, they were collapsed together in the analyses.


but also aspects of assessment and interpretation; pro-environ-mental attitudes are nearly always considered in relation tobehaviour, etc. In this respect, when different modes andresearch themes were identified in the same article, we focusedon the most prominent, so that in our classification each articlewas included in only one category. For instance, the interpretivemode was preferred when the active role of psychologicalprocesses in human–environment transaction emerged in thestudy, and the evaluative mode was preferred when peoplerespond to specific features of the environment; likewise,research on wayfinding clearly has to do also with behaviour, butif the main concern was on the processes by which peopledevelop their personal representation of the environment, it wasclassified in the interpretive mode.

2.2.1.3. The type of setting. A central issue in environmentalpsychology is the place-specific character of people–environmentrelationships. The analysis of the setting types in which people’sperceptions, affects and behaviours were investigated allowed usto identify which places the empirical research in environmentalpsychology was focused on over the years. The built/naturalcharacter of environments was considered, as well as the levelof analysis, the specific place investigated and its function(Kramer, 1995). These trends can provide insights for under-standing what the future directions can be, namely which placesare underrepresented, and are likely to be the focus of attentionin future research.

In particular, the following criteria were taken into account inour research:

(1) The typology of environment (natural vs. built).(2) The nature of the environment (indoor vs. outdoor).(3) The size or level of ‘‘anthropisation’’ of the environment.

Different levels of size were identified for the built envi-ronment (rooms, buildings, built areas, neighbourhoods,towns/cities) and of anthropisation for natural environment(nearby nature, urban parks/natural facilities, rural areas,natural/wild areas). Furthermore, some very specific andcircumscribed settings (cars, ships, etc.) or elements in thesettings (trees, objects, etc.) were identified, as wellas examples of environments which can hardly been definedas properly built or natural (large scale environments asregions/counties, and the world as a ‘‘global environment’’);finally, many studies were found referring to a joined anal-ysis ofdor comparisons betweendenvironments of differentsize (e.g. house and neighbourhood; local and global envi-ronment, etc.) or typology (e.g. built and natural areas).

(4) The specific place considered in the study.(5) The function of the environment, whether residential, working,

leisure/recreational, service (e.g. places for dailydsuch assupermarkets, or institutionaldsuch as schools, libraries, hos-pitalsdnecessities), connecting different places (e.g. streets,pathways, etc.), ecological (environments whose preservationis considered by people as having an intrinsic value per se,independent from the specific purposes or needs of a person orgroup), or experimental (when the relationship with theenvironment is imposed by the researcher in order to detectspecific characteristics of human functioningde.g. cognitivemappingdor to understand general environmental propertiesassociated with human responsede.g. preference, aestheticvalue/scenic beauty, etc.). Several studies proposed an analysisof environments with mixed function (e.g. the city as a whole,in which people contemporaneously live, work, spend theirleisure time, etc.), or a comparison between settings witha different function.

2.2.1.4. The characteristics of people involved in person–environmenttransactions. An interesting question concerns the relationshipsbetween mode of transaction/topical areas of inquiry and pop-ulation. Have any topics been studied more effectively in someage groups? If so, does this mean that a specific issue is notimportant for people at any stage of the lifespan? The differentage groups identified were developmental age (children andadolescents), young people, adults, elderly people, and, of course,a mixed age group resulting from comparisons between two ofmore of them.

A second feature characterising people–environment relation-ships is the environmental role of participants (Barker, 1968). Ageneral consideration of environmental role has to take intoaccount the involvement (active vs. passive) and the duration of therelationships with the setting (for instance, visitors vs. residents).According to these criteria, we distinguished between managers/policy makers/designers, on the one hand, and ‘‘users’’ of theenvironment, on the other. Further, users were divided in ‘‘generalusers’’ (users of the world as a general environment), ‘‘residents’’,‘‘workers’’, ‘‘visitors/customers’’. Nonetheless, some topics weretraditionally addressed neglecting the specific nature of the trans-actions between people and the environment. For example, instudies on cognitive mapping university students were frequentlyrecruited, implicitly assuming that the general organisation ofcognitive schemata can be investigated independently from thespecific environmental role. So, the additional category of ‘‘exper-imental subjects’’ was included.

2.2.1.5. Methodological issues. In addition to aspects directlyrelated to the setting and the ‘‘actors’’, a couple of methodologicalissues were also considered. One is the mode of presentation of thesetting, which has to do with the experience of the environmentinvolved in the study. A classification which proved to be effective isbased on the distinction between: field studies implying an on-siterelationship with the environment; studies in which respondentsare asked to think about one or more real environments and to givea personal evaluations and/or reconstruction of their experience,usually through interviews and questionnaires (e.g. studies onresidential satisfaction, place attachment, etc.); studies of envi-ronments through simulations (visual, graphic, verbal or virtualsimulations) and laboratory studies.1 The choice among them, farfrom being a matter of practical opportunity alone, is to be viewedas evidence of preference for some information on human–environment relations which is more likely to emerge through a specificmethodology.

A second methodological aspect we took into account was thesampling procedure, distinguishing among case/ethnographicstudies, opportunistic samplings, samples selected on the basis ofspecific characteristics of the population (e.g. age, income, ethnicgroup, personality, etc.) or the environment (e.g. rural vs. urban,level of noise, typology of dwelling, etc.); and lastly representativesamples. An additional type of sampling was considered therecruitment of students, chosen for their availability more than fortheir distinctive features.

Moreover, we classified the source of data employed in thedifferent investigations, distinguishing between observationalstudies, research using reports (including verbal and/or graphicanswers to interviews, questionnaires or different kind of tasks),and indirect data collections.

Journal articles were classified with reference to all of thesecriteria, even though for some of them it was impossible to apply


entirely the present taxonomy, and the label ‘‘not applicable’’ (NA)was used. Two raters independently classified all the articles. Onthe whole, inter-rater reliability was high (Cohen’s kappa ¼ .81).

2.3. Analyses

A two-stage statistical approach was adopted, using SPADN 11Program, in order to provide a picture of the general patterns-dincluding aspects of the setting, people, and relationshipsbetween themdthat characterised environmental psychologyresearch over the years. In the first stage we performed MultipleCorrespondence Analysis (MCA), a method of factoring categoricalvariables and mapping their association into geometric distanceseasy to illustrate on simple graphs (factorial plans). The input toMCA is a design matrix in which cases are rows and categories ofvariables are columns. In the second stage Hierarchical ClusterAnalysis (HCA) was carried out in order to determine clusters fromthe MCA principal components. It must be noted that MultipleCorrespondence Analysis is an exploratory, not a confirmatorytechnique. Therefore, Chi-square tests were performed in order tocheck whether specific issues (mode of transaction, researchthemes, type of setting and research methods) showed any signif-icant change over the years or between the journals.

Eight active variables (for a total number of 56 modalities) wereemployed in MCA, namely research theme, typology (natural, built,and mixed) and function of the environment, age and environ-mental role of respondents, sampling procedure, mode of presen-tation of the setting, and source of data. Six supplementaryvariables were also used, namely form and phase of transaction,indoor–outdoor nature of the environment, size/level of anthrop-isation, journal, and year of publication. In this regard, publicationswere gathered in six lustrums (1976–1980, 1981–1985, 1986–1990,1991–1995, 1996–2000, 2001–2005), plus an initial seven-yearperiod (1969–1975). The first two periods included only paperspublished in E&B.

2.4. Results

2.4.1. Patterns of people–environment relationshipsThe MCA suggests that the data can be well represented in

a multi-dimensional space characterised by six main axes, whichreproduces 34.1% of the total information.

The first axis is strongly related to environmental role andfunction, mode of presentation of the setting and research theme:a clear opposition emerges between studies on simulated envi-ronments having an experimental function, associated with anexperimental role of participants, and focusing on cognition andaesthetics, on the one side; and studies on real environmentshaving an ecological or residential function, associated with therole of general user or residents, and focusing on environmentalattitudes, on the other side.

Environmental function and role score high on the second axistoo, in association with the nature of the environment: theecological function is associated with the global environment andthe ‘‘general user’’ role, in opposition to the service functionexperienced by visitors in built environments.

The third axis is less informative, differentiating mainly the useof indirect data collection, associated with the absence of specificsampling procedures and a characterisation of population in termsof role and age, to the variety of verbal and behavioural data inwhich all these aspects are taken into account.

The fourth axis involves again environmental function and role,in association with the mode of presentation of the setting, sug-gesting an opposition between field studies focusing on shortduration relationships with environments having a connecting,

service-institution, recreational or ecological function, and studieson residents’ relationships with their residential environment,developed through different methodologies.

The fifth axis differentiates between work and residential envi-ronments, mainly on the basis of environment function and role.

The sixth axis has a residual character, isolating the associationbetween a poordif anydinterest for the characteristics of theenvironment, and the focus on personal features of people (e.g.empirical research on determinants of participation in groups/organisations, perception of hazards, models of privacy, cognitiveskills, etc.).

The second step of our analysis was to identify significantpatterns of associations among research themes, environments,populations and related methodologies, applying a hierarchicalmethod of cluster analysis in the factorial space of the first six axes(or factors). A 7-group partition was found at a level of 78% for theInertia inter/Total Inertia ratio. The plot of the barycentre of thegroups in the factorial space created respectively by axes 1 and 2,and by 4 and 5dthese are, as described in the MCA, the mostinteresting dimensionsdillustrates the relationships betweenclusters and factors (see Figs. 1 and 2).

Fig. 1 shows that Cluster 2, including mainly studies on envi-ronmental attitudes and behaviour, is highly characterised by thetwo first factors, being opposed on the first axis to Cluster 1,including experimental studies on cognition and aesthetics, and, onthe second axis, to Cluster 7, including observational studies, andCluster 3, grouping studies using indirect data. Clusters 4, 5, and 6score low on these axes.

Fig. 2 shows that Clusters 3, 4 (including studies on residentialenvironments), 5 (grouping studies on work environments) and 6are opposed to Clusters 2 and 7 on the fourth axis. Clusters 1, 2, 3, 6,and 7 score low on the fifth axis, which opposes Cluster 4 andCluster 5.

A more detailed description of the clusters is presented below.Statistics of the modalities significantly associated to the clustersare given in Tables 3–9. In each table test-values of modalities (>2),associated p-values, and percentages of cluster/modality (the ratiobetween the cases showing one specific modality in the cluster andin the total sample), modality/cluster (the proportion of cases in thecluster showing one specific modality), and global (the proportionof cases in the total sample showing one specific modality) werereported.

Cluster 1 (N ¼ 341d23%) is mainly characterised by methodo-logical aspects: namely, the experimental character of the studies.Participants are often young people recruited among students, whoeither were presented with simulated environments or performedspecific tasks in campuses and laboratories. Reports are used fordata collection. Preferred themes are visual preferences and affec-tive appraisal, environmental cognition and navigation, but alsomood and performance related to specific environmental condi-tions, such as light or reduced stimulation. These studies aresignificantly associated to JEP, while no significant association withspecific periods is found (see Table 3).

Cluster 2 (N ¼ 161d11%) is represented by studies on the globalenvironment, which appears to be of interest for its intrinsicecological value. Research themes deal with environmental atti-tude and pro-environmental behaviour, and are mostly developedby asking either representative samples of generic users, or peopleinvolved in managing the environment, their beliefs toward envi-ronmental sustainability, concerns about nuclear hazard, andbehavioural intentions toward waste reduction or energy conser-vation. This group is significantly associated with E&B and to themost recent (2000–2005) lustrum (see Table 4).

Cluster 3 (N ¼ 74d5%) is characterised by studies in which datacollections are predominantly obtained through access to indirect/

Fig. 1. MCA: factorial space of Axes 1 and 2.


objective data (e.g. police reports on criminal behaviour, databaseson the effectiveness of interventions on pro-environmentalbehaviour, etc.). This cluster is significantly associated with thebehavioural form of transactions, both in the operative and in theresponsive mode, and to the urban context. Criminal behaviour,often in relation to climate and temperature, constitutes a wide-spread topic, followed by studies on environmental policy. As forthe journals, here too we find a significant association with E&B(see Table 5).

Cluster 4 (N ¼ 451d30%) is the largest one, accounting for30.09% of the articles. It represents the ‘‘hard core’’ of environ-mental psychology, since the barycentre of the group is locatednear the origin of the first five axes, and it is the only one which isneither associated to a specific period nor to a journal. It is char-acterised by research on residential environments, at differentlevels of scale, with special emphasis on house and neighbourhood.

Fig. 2. MCA: factorial sp

Residential preferences and satisfaction, together with place iden-tity and attachment, the analysis of potential sources of stress, andrecycling behaviour are the main research themes. Adult residentsare preferably involved in expressing evaluations, even thoughspecific studies on elderly people or on different age groups’perception are significantly associated with this cluster. Theresearch methodology includes questionnaires to representativesamples of population, or a more focused choice of respondents onthe basis of personal (e.g. age, gender, income, etc.) or environ-mental (e.g. low- vs. high-rise buildings, rural vs. urban settings,low vs. high levels of noise, etc.) features (see Table 6).

Cluster 5 (N ¼ 100d7%) is characterised by studies on workenvironments, in which the responsive mode of person–environment transaction is mainly investigated. Therefore, participants aremainly adult workers, and an ethnographic/case study method-ology is adopted, focusing on specific environmental features (e.g.

ace of Axes 4 and 5.

Table 3Cluster 1dSignificant modalities.

Test-value

p-Value Clu/Mod Mod/Clu Global Modality Classificationcriterion

31.47 <.001 87.94 87.68 22.68 Experimental Environmental role28.50 <.001 81.98 82.70 22.95 Simulation/

ExperimentalPresentation of thesetting

24.71 <.001 97.89 54.55 12.68 Experimental Function of theenvironment

21.94 <.001 69.41 69.21 22.68 Students Sampling procedure19.90 <.001 57.53 73.90 29.22 Young people Age14.70 <.001 94.19 23.75 5.74 Aesthetic

evaluationResearch theme

10.27 <.001 52.34 32.84 14.28 Cognition Research theme8.11 <.001 26.22 96.48 83.72 Report Source of data7.38 <.001 33.90 52.20 35.02 JEP Journal7.02 <.001 37.28 37.83 23.08 Interpretive Mode of

transaction6.71 <.001 31.55 57.18 41.23 Outdoor Nature of environment2.78 .003 27.18 39.30 32.89 Evaluative Mode of transaction2.51 .006 34.44 9.09 6.00 Connecting Function of the

environment


Test-value

p-Value Clu/Mod Mod/Clu Global Modality Classificationcriterion

23.45 <.001 98.65 98.65 4.94 NA Sampling procedure18.98 <.001 98.18 72.97 3.67 Indirect data Source of data17.01 <.001 46.15 89.19 9.54 NA Age11.70 <.001 31.76 63.51 9.87 NA Environmental role8.84 <.001 33.33 39.19 5.80 NA Presentation of the

setting5.97 <.001 8.82 77.03 43.10 Behavioural Form of transaction5.06 <.001 13.43 36.49 13.41 Urban Size/anthropisation3.78 <.001 11.00 31.08 13.94 Environmental

propertiesResearch theme

3.74 <.001 9.40 40.54 21.28 Operative Mode of transaction3.23 .001 14.12 16.22 5.67 Mixed Function of the

environment2.88 .002 8.31 36.49 21.68 Responsive Mode of transaction2.65 .004 13.64 12.16 4.40 NA Function of the

environment2.21 .014 9.21 18.92 10.14 Pro-environmental

behaviourResearch theme

2.15 .014 5.85 77.03 64.98 E&B Journal


Test-value

p-Value

Clu/Mod

Mod/Clu

Global Modality Classificationcriterion


open plan vs. traditional office, windowed vs. windowless rooms, aswell as extreme environments, etc.). The main research themes arethe analysis of stress reactions or environmental featurespromoting satisfaction and well-being, but also personality issignificantly represented. The most representative directions ofinquiry are post-occupancy evaluation and polar psychology.Reports are the main source of data collection. Finally, E&B and thefifth lustrum (1991–1995) are significantly associated with thiscluster (see Table 7).

Cluster 6 (N ¼ 45d3%), including only a few dozen items, isa residual cluster, mainly defined by the absence of both specificcharacteristics of the environment and the environmental role ofpeople. For the most part, empirical data are used to explorea variety of theoretical or methodological issues (from privacy tohazard perceptions; from place meaning to noise sensitivity oreffect of climate on sleep; from decisions to volunteer in nongov-ernmental organisations to perceptions of environmental changeor connectedness to nature), without any definite reference toparticular people–environment relationships. JEP is significantlyassociated with this cluster (see Table 8).


Test-value

p-Value Clu/Mod

Mod/Clu


28.82 <.001 91.67 95.65 11.21 Ecological Function of theenvironment

25.27 <.001 93.43 79.50 9.14 NA Typology ofenvironment

23.68 <.001 93.55 72.05 8.27 Global Size/anthropisation

23.42 <.001 69.50 86.34 13.34 NA Nature ofenvironment

22.14 <.001 81.25 72.67 9.61 General user Environmental role20.02 <.001 61.00 75.78 13.34 Environmental

attitudeResearch theme

11.78 <.001 24.75 75.78 32.89 Evaluative Mode oftransaction

8.26 <.001 15.40 90.68 63.24 Reconstruction Presentation of thesetting

8.09 <.001 30.37 36.02 12.74 Representative Samplingprocedure

7.42 <.001 12.83 100.00 83.72 Report Source of data4.04 <.001 30.91 10.56 3.67 Manager Environmental role3.42 <.001 14.21 52.80 39.89 Adult Age3.19 <.001 15.82 32.92 22.35 2000–2005 Lustrum2.66 .004 17.76 16.77 10.14 Pro-environmental

behaviourResearch theme

2.61 .004 18.55 14.29 8.27 Mixed Age

Cluster 7 (N ¼ 327d21%) is characterised by observationalstudies on behaviour in the environment, which have to do withterritoriality and personal space and, in general, with the use of theenvironment, both in the operative and in the responsive mode oftransaction. Settings having different functions are included in thiscluster, ranging from recreational to service or connecting. More-over, both natural and built environments (indoor and outdoor) arefound. A variety of specific places are represented: in addition tostreets, schools, shops, and hospitals; also parks, museums or zooswere included. Visitors/customers are the typical populationinvestigated, frequently through field experiments or studies inwhich observation emerges as a fundamental method for datacollection. As a consequence, opportunity samples are oftenemployed. In addition, this approach is significantly associated with

32.80 <.001 91.21 85.14 28.09 Residential Environmental role27.54 <.001 83.99 75.61 27.08 Residential Function of the

environment16.15 <.001 43.67 91.80 63.24 Reconstruction Presentation of the

setting14.62 <.001 83.77 28.60 10.27 Neighbourhood Size/anthropisation11.60 <.001 39.83 85.59 64.64 Built Typology of

environment9.45 <.001 43.98 58.31 39.89 Adult Age8.10 <.001 34.02 94.68 83.72 Report Source of data8.02 <.001 86.96 8.87 3.07 Service/Institutional Function of the

environment7.87 <.001 68.82 14.19 6.20 Meaning Research theme7.44 <.001 44.47 41.91 28.35 Characteristics of

environmentSampling procedure

7.15 <.001 53.40 22.62 12.74 Representative Sampling procedure6.50 <.001 45.78 31.26 20.55 Building Size/anthropisation6.19 <.001 49.28 22.62 13.81 Evaluation Research theme6.12 <.001 77.50 6.87 2.67 Elderly people Age3.48 <.001 42.26 15.74 11.21 Indoor & Outdoor Nature of

environment3.40 <.001 44.83 11.53 7.74 Stress Research theme3.19 .001 37.62 26.61 21.28 Operative Mode of transaction2.50 .006 45.31 6.43 4.27 Large scale Size/anthropisation2.44 .007 40.32 11.09 8.27 Mixed Age2.36 .009 36.91 19.07 15.54 Characteristics of

populationSampling procedure

2.34 .010 38.82 13.08 10.14 Pro-environmentalbehaviour

Research theme


Test-value

p-Value

Clu/Mod

Mod/Clu


23.61 <.001 91.00 91.00 6.67 Worker Environmental role21.05 <.001 87.78 79.00 6.00 Working Function of the

environment10.74 <.001 15.05 90.00 39.89 Adult Age6.83 <.001 16.00 52.00 21.68 Responsive Mode of transaction6.70 <.001 9.70 92.00 63.24 Reconstruction Presentation of the

setting6.33 <.001 13.65 58.00 28.35 Characteristics of

environmentSampling procedure

6.04 <.001 12.79 60.00 31.29 Indoor Nature ofenvironment

4.90 <.001 28.85 15.00 3.47 Ethnographic/Casestudy

Sampling procedure

4.86 <.001 19.83 23.00 7.74 Stress Research theme4.25 <.001 9.91 64.00 43.10 Behavioural Form of transaction4.25 <.001 9.17 75.00 54.57 Reactive Phase of transaction3.97 <.001 13.88 29.00 13.94 Environmental


3.64 <.001 13.43 27.00 13.41 Room Size/anthropisation3.03 <.001 8.11 79.00 64.98 E&B Journal2.72 <.001 20.51 8.00 2.60 Personality Research theme2.72 <.001 11.07 27.00 16.28 1991–1995 Lustrum2.69 <.001 10.39 32.00 20.55 Building Size/anthropisation2.66 <.001 7.41 93.00 83.72 Report Source of data


Test-value

p-Value

Clu/Mod

Mod/Clu

Global Modality Classification criterion

29.19 <.001 89.35 79.51 19.41 Visitor Environmental role16.20 <.001 88.79 31.50 7.74 Service/Institutional Function of the

environment16.17 <.001 87.50 32.11 8.01 Field Presentation of the

setting15.16 <.001 79.41 33.03 9.07 Recreational Function of the

environment15.11 <.001 69.95 39.14 12.21 Observation Source of data10.68 <.001 58.97 28.13 10.41 Child/Adolescent Age8.19 <.001 47.28 26.61 12.27 Opportunity Sampling procedure7.81 <.001 80.00 9.79 2.67 Service/Daily Function of the

environment7.50 <.001 31.11 61.47 43.10 Behavioural Form of transaction7.35 <.001 56.67 15.60 6.00 Connecting Function of the

environment7.06 <.001 55.68 14.98 5.87 Built area Size/anthropisation6.45 <.001 35.74 34.86 21.28 Operative Mode of transaction6.08 <.001 29.17 59.33 44.36 Active Phase of transaction5.79 <.001 52.00 11.93 5.00 Use of the

environmentResearch theme

4.14 <.001 28.57 40.98 31.29 Indoor Nature of environment4.01 <.001 24.97 74.01 64.64 Built Typology of

environment3.60 <.001 24.64 73.39 64.98 E&B Journal3.14 <.001 30.85 18.96 13.41 Room Size/anthropisation2.96 <.001 38.71 7.34 4.14 Territoriality Research theme2.94 <.001 33.94 11.31 7.27 1969–1975 Lustrum2.80 <.001 29.67 18.96 13.94 Environmental


2.49 <.001 25.08 47.40 41.23 Outdoor Nature of environment2.24 <.001 29.53 13.46 9.94 Natural Typology of

environment2.19 .003 26.46 26.30 21.68 Responsive Mode of transaction


the study of developmental ages. These studies are significantlyassociated with the first lustrum, and hence to E&B (see Table 9).

2.4.2. Trends in environmental psychology and differences betweenE&B and JEP

Trends in environmental psychology and differences betweenthe journals were investigated through a Chi-square analysis.

Overall, in terms of trends over time, there is no significantchange in the emphasis given to the different modes of person–environment transactions (Chi-square¼ 25.02, df ¼ 18, notsignificant), whereas a comparison between E&B and JEP, and theanalysis of trends in specific research themes suggest a greaterdiversity.

A significant difference between journals emerges in theinterest towards the different modes of transaction (Chi-square¼ 22.38, df ¼ 3, p < .001), with E&B placing more emphasison the Operative mode and JEP mainly focusing on the Interpretivemode (see Fig. 3).

Trends in modes of transaction in each journal (see Fig. 4) showa slow decline in JEP of papers focusing on the cognitive form oftransaction, in particular as regards the Evaluative mode, witha corresponding increase in articles focusing on the behavioural


Test-value

p-Value

Clu/Mod

Mod/Clu

Global Modality Classification criterion

99.99 <.001 66.67 97.78 4.40 NA Function of theenvironment

14.57 <.001 76.74 73.33 2.87 NA Size/anthropisation14.48 <.001 75.00 73.33 2.94 NA Nature of environment14.48 <.001 75.00 73.33 2.94 NA Typology of environment8.69 <.001 18.92 62.22 9.87 NA Environmental role7.55 <.001 22.99 44.44 5.80 NA Presentation of the setting2.83 <.001 10.94 15.56 4.27 Large

scaleSize/anthropisation

2.75 <.001 3.51 97.78 83.72 Report Source of data2.71 <.001 4.76 55.56 35.02 JEP Journal2.58 <.001 10.91 13.33 3.67 Manager Environmental role

form of transaction. In E&B, the first period shows a flourishing ofstudies placing greater emphasis on the Operative mode, whilestudies on the Responsive mode are underrepresented. Over thenext six lustrums the variations in transactional modes do not showany clear trend, but mere fluctuations.

Further significant differences between E&B and JEP (Chi-square¼ 79.79, df ¼ 11, p < .001) can be noted with reference toresearch themes: studies on evaluation (assessment of environ-mental quality, preference and satisfaction), pro-environmentalbehaviour, and use of the space are more specifically addressed inE&B, whereas research on environmental cognition, meaning andaesthetics are more represented in JEP (see Fig. 5). In both journals,the number of articles devoted to personality and environment isnegligible.

In terms of trends over the years, in E&B the first lustrum ischaracterised by studies on territoriality, use of space, and envi-ronmental cognition. Interest in these themes constantly declinesover subsequent periods, while studies on pro-environmentalbehaviour dramatically increase over the last three lustrums. In JEP,a significant variation in research themes emerges only in the lastlustrum, with a rise of studies on meaning, environmental attitudeand pro-environmental behaviour and a decline of studies onaesthetics.

With respect to the indoor–outdoor nature of the environmentbeing studied, the trend analysis does not show a general effect(Chi-square¼ 10.11, df ¼ 6, not significant) nor a significant differ-ence between journals (Chi-square¼ 2.19, df ¼ 1, not significant).Nonetheless, residual analysis outlines a strong interest in the lastlustrum for research on the outdoors, confirmed by the increasinginterest towards the study of natural and global environments (Chi-square¼ 43.60, df ¼ 12, p < .001).

Fig. 3. Modes of transaction in E&B and JEP.


As to methodological issues, a significant difference in the modeof presentation of the environment between journals emerges (Chi-square¼ 76.43, df ¼ 2, p < .001). Studies employing a reconstruc-tion of the experience in the environment are overrepresented inboth journals, but E&B shows a greater interest in field observationsthan JEP, and JEP a stronger concern with experimental researchand use of simulations than E&B (see Fig. 6).

This difference is partially due to the significant change occurredover the years (Chi-square¼ 54.79, df ¼ 12, p < .001), with field

Fig. 4. Trends in modes of tra

studies more represented in the first and second lustrums (whenonly E&B was present) and then decreasing, to the advantage ofexperimental studies, which reached the top in the late 1980s andin the 1990s. The use of a reconstruction of the experience in theenvironment is constant through the years, and, as noticed, para-mount in both journals (see Fig. 7). Accordingly, a clear trend isoutlined in the source of data, with reports underrepresented in thefirst and second lustrums and overrepresented in the last one,while observation shows the inverse pattern (Chi-square¼ 26.03,

nsaction in E&B and JEP.

Fig. 5. Research themes in E&B and JEP.


df ¼ 6, p < .001). Again, E&B (Chi-square¼ 18.49, df ¼ 1, p < .001)is significantly more characterised by studies employing observa-tions and JEP by studies employing reports.

3. Discussion

The analysis of empirical research in environmental psychologycan help in addressing the peculiarities of the discipline, its internaldynamics, its weaknesses and directions for the future.

With respect to what are the main research interests in envi-ronmental psychology, the bulk of studies we examined clearlyshowed the prominence of four areas of inquiry, which can beconsidered the leading topics in the discipline. First, the study of

Fig. 6. Mode of presentation of the

the residential environment, whether home, domestic surround-ings or neighbourhood, which was addressed from different pointsof view: people’s satisfaction and preferences for their residentialenvironment, as well as sources of stress/discomfort; affectiveevaluations, attachment and the connection between place expe-rience and the definition of personal identity. Second, the study ofenvironmental cognition, preference and affective evaluation,mainly pursued through an experimental approach in the labora-tory setting, and by using simulations of the environment. Third,the study of actual behaviour in the environment (whether naturalor built, indoor or outdoor), in which observation is the key methodto understand how people use the environment, or react to it.Fourth, and strongly increasing in the last years, the study of nature

environment in E&B and JEP.

Fig. 7. Trends in the mode of presentation of the environment.

2 The recent publication in JEP of the paper on wayfinding in the real world byneuroscientists Hugo J. Spiers and Eleanor A. Maguire (2008) could be a sign ofchange.


and global environment, which were taken into consideration byemphasising ecological problems.

Beyond this static picture, differences between journals andvariations of research interests over the past 46 years account fordirections of development in the field.

Jonathan Sime (1999), in a survey of six textbooks on environ-mental psychology published between 1995 and 1997, entitleddnotcoincidentallyd‘‘What is environmental psychology’’, showed howthe views of scholars in the field differ as to both the theoreticalparadigm and the methodologies that define the field, and the roleassigned to psychology as part of the study of relations betweenpeople and the environment. Comparison of the two journals helpsus to answer the question about differences between environmentalpsychology in the strict sense, and the study of people–environmentrelationships in the broad sense. The central role attributed topsychology by JEP is reflected in the greater emphasis given to theinterpretation of the environment. Conversely, the greater interestfor the reactive mode of transaction in E&B, whether evaluative orresponsive, could be interpreted as deriving from a deeperinvolvement of the component of design and planning.

E&B also shows a stronger variation in research interests thanJEP, especially when considering the operative mode of transactionthis is probably due to both the wider variety of topics included inthe area and contextual factors affecting the development ofresearch on behaviour in place.

With reference to research themes as well, there are differencesbetween the journals, with pro-environmental behaviour, evalua-tion, and use of the environment more represented in E&B, andaesthetics, cognition, and meaning in JEP.

We stated previously that the border between studies on pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour is rather arbitrary, giventhat many studies focus on the relation between the two. Therecent increase in contributions in both areas makes one think thatone key element is concern for the environment, rather thaninterest in the one or the other transactional mode. On the otherhand, studies on environmental control, privacy and territorialityhave been continually declining; research on place meaningshowed a positive trend, while the area that encompasses studieson organisation and use of the space maintained the same levelthroughout the entire period.

The results of our analyses also highlight some underdevelopedor missing areas of investigation, from the multimodal perceptionof the environment (e.g. auditory and olfactory, in addition tovisual) to the impact on urban environment of massive migration.Evidencing deficiencies is surely a very easy criticism, but two ofthem need to be highlighted. First, the impact of communicationtechnology on relationships with place: Stokols (1995) suggested itas a new direction for environmental research, and reiterated thisproposition in his chapter on the psychology of technology (Stokols

& Montero, 2002), but no trend in this direction emerged from ourdata. Second, the incapability of taking advantage of recent devel-opments in neurosciences2: research in this direction wouldconstitute a big challenge in many respects, especially because itwould mean introducing a molar level of analysis in a psychologicaldomain dominated by focus on molecular units, as happened forearly research on restorativeness (see Ulrich, 1981). Conversely,references to environmental psychology in neurological studies onwayfinding, and even in computer science, can be found. Envi-ronmental psychology is better in sowing then in harvesting!

With reference to methods, a progressive decline of the inno-vative emphasis on both the ‘‘social’’ and the ‘‘physical’’ side of thesocio-physical environment, also by means of observation and fieldresearch, was observed. New methods hardly emerge, over-whelmed by approaches and methodologies borrowed from othersub-fields of psychology, such as social psychology. As shown bythe modalities included in Cluster 2, which is indicative of the morerecent trend, the environment often appears to be confined on thebackground, missing any specific definition of its nature andfunctional character, except for a quite generic ecological function.

4. Conclusion

Our empirical approach to environmental psychology literaturehas identified some strengths and weaknesses of the field thatprovide useful suggestions for future research. However, if we try togo over a neutral description, and express our evaluation of pasttrends and our perspective on what should be done, probablyempirical data are less important that personal and direct experi-ence with research problems and people.

The two authors of this paper belong to two different genera-tions, and thus, in addition to personality differences (for instance,a more optimistic vs. a more pessimistic attitude), differ also both intheir practical and emotional involvement in the future, and in theirmode of looking at the past.

For somebody who has experienced a time when, in manycountries, the establishment of environmental psychology as a newscientific field was an arrival point, not a starting one, currenttendencies toward creating subfields, or parallel, sister fields, canappear as a fragmentation; that is to say, a failure in making effectivethe coherent and unifying theoretical framework auspicated byCraik (1973), but also by many other pioneers of environmentalpsychology like Wapner (1995) and Proshansky (1987). From a morepersonal point of view, this would mean also that the community of


friends, more than colleagues, that constituted the world of envi-ronmental psychology research, risks disappearingdas of coursewill happen for demographic reasonsdwithout leaving to ouryounger colleagues a precious heritage of human relationships.

For newcomers of the field, the onset of new ‘‘environmentalpsychologies’’ could be a vital sign of the differentiation that usuallyaccompanies the growing of an organism, including scientific disci-plines, often deriving from the impact of environmental psychologyon other disciplines and psychological sub-fields. Although thecollaboration between architects and psychologists has not fullysatisfied all the initial promises, environmental psychology continuesto be a reference point for many architects and planners, not only asregards the integration in design of an increased attention to usersneed, but also for concepts like place identity and attachment. Inaddition, the recognition by gerontologists of the role of the envi-ronment in maintaining the autonomy and well-being of ageingpeople stimulated a merging of interests and competences betweenresearchers from both disciplines (Lawton, 1985), resulting in a newand specific discipline, environmental gerontology (Phillipson, 2004;Wahl, 2006). Similarly, the importance of transactions with theenvironment has been acknowledged in developmental psychology,for their value in the construction of personal identity (Korpela, 2002),and in work psychology (McCoy, 2002).

What about the possibility for environmental psychology to buildup a unifying framework for understanding people–environmenttransactions? Unfortunately, the urgency and seriousness of ourplanet situation do not allow us to thinkdas could be thought at theend of the 1970sdthat concerns about sustainability could beconsidered as a short-lived fashion (cf. Stokols, 1978). But does thismean that environmental psychology as a whole has to transform ingreen or sustainable psychology? We think that we should learnfrom the past in order to develop the future of our discipline. Theconcept of sustainability might assume a unifying role, but only inthe light of the place specificity of human behaviour (Russell & Ward,1982): hence, with reference to all the differentdand specific-denvironments which have been studied for decades. Sustain-ability has to do not only with a foresightful use of environmentalresources, but also with the maintenance of personal and socialones, which may be threatened in everyday environments; as such,it implies the idea of psychological well-being. In this view, van denBerg, Hartig, and Staats (2007) addressed the issue of sustainabilityin the development of the urban environment.

This would not mean emptying the word sustainability of allmeaning, using it as a mere fashionable label, but tracing back the studyof people–environment relationships to the original aim of under-standing the role of different environments in psychological well-being.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Carlo Plaino and Luca Giachi for theirrelevant contribution to the classification of E&B and JEP articles.

References

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying theenvironment of human behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2002). Environmental Psychology: From spatial-physical environment to sustainable development. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman(Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 28–54). New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Canter, D. (Ed.). (1970). Architectural psychology. London: Royal Institute of BritishArchitects.

Canter, D. (1998). Editorial. A new awakening. Journal of Environmental Psychology,18, 1–2.

Canter, D., & Craik, K. H. (1981). Environmental psychology. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 1, 1–11.

Craik, K. H. (1973). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 24,403–422.

Evans, G. W. (2006). Environmental Psychology. Child development and the phys-ical environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 423–451.

Gifford, R. (1995). Natural psychology: An introduction. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 15, 167–168.

Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology and sustainable development:Expansion, maturation, and challenges. Journal of Social Issues, 63,199–212.

Holahan, C. J. (1986). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 37,381–407.

Korpela, K. M. (2002). Children’s environment. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman(Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 363–373). New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Kramer, B. (1995). Classification of generic places: Explorations with implicationsfor evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 3–22.

Lawton, M. P. (1985). The elderly in context: Perspectives from environmentalpsychology and gerontology. Environment and Behavior, 17, 501–519.

McCoy, J. (2002). Work environments. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbookof environmental psychology (pp. 443–460). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Phillipson, C. (2004). Urbanisation and ageing: Towards a new environmentalgerontology. Ageing & Society, 24, 963–972.

Pol, E. (1993). Environmental psychology in Europe. From architectural psychology togreen psychology. Aldershot: Avebury.

Proshansky, H. M. (1987). The field of environmental psychology: Securing itsfuture. In D. Stokols, & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology,Vol. 2 (pp. 1467–1488). New York: Wiley.

Robins, R. W., Gosling, S. D., & Craik, K. H. (1999). An empirical analysis of trends inpsychology. American Psychologist, 54, 117–128.

Russell, J. A., & Ward, L. M. (1982). Environmental psychology. Annual Review ofPsychology, 33, 651–688.

Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1990). Environmental psychology. Annual Review ofPsychology, 41, 441–477.

Saunders, C. D. (2003). The emerging field of conservation psychology. HumanEcology Review, 10, 137–149.

Sime, J. D. (1999). What is environmental psychology? Texts, content and context.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 191–206.

Spiers, H. J., & Maguire, E. A. (2008). The dynamic nature of cognition duringwayfinding. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 232–249.

Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 253–295.

Stokols, D. (1995). The paradox of environmental psychology. American Psychologist,50, 821–837.

Stokols, D., & Montero, M. (2002). Toward an environmental psychology of theinternet. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmentalpsychology (pp. 661–665). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Suedfeld, P., & Steel, G. D. (2000). The environmental psychology of capsule habi-tats. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 237–253.

Sundstrom, E., Bell, P. A., Busby, P. L., & Asmus, C. (1996). Environmental psychology1989–1994. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 485–512.

Taylor, R. B. (1980). Is environmental psychology dying? Population and Environ-mental Psychology Newsletter, 7, 14–15, cit. in Canter & Craik, 1981.

Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects.Environment and Behavior, 13, 523–556.

van den Berg, A. E., Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2007). Preference for nature in urbanizedsocieties: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of SocialIssues, 63, 79–96.

Wahl, H. W. (2006). Introduction: the person–environment perspective in ageingresearch. In H. W. Wahl (Ed.), The many faces of health, competence and well-being in old age: Integrating epidemiological, psychological and social perspectives(pp. 3–6). Dordrecht: Springer.

Wapner, S. (1995). Toward integration: Environmental psychology in relation toother subfields of psychology. Environment and Behavior, 27, 9–32.

Documents

Journal of Environmental Psychology - Tallinn Universityarro/Happy Space EKA 2014/empirical research in env p.pdf · the distinctive features of environmental psychology by analysing